JUDGMENT 1. Appellant-plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No. 77B/93, in the Court of VIII Addl. Judge, to Distt. Judge, Gwalior for realization of Rs. 24,000/- on the ground that by registered sale deed dated 7.7.1989, his wife, deceased-Urmila purchased a plot measuring 14 x 30 ft. from the defendant. However, one Rajkumar Singh Chauhan started construction on the disputed land on 26.10.1989, against whom, his wife filed a Civil Suit No. 117/89, wherein, respondent-defendant also applied for being impleaded as a party but his application was rejected. After enquiry, in the aforesaid civil suit, application of temporary injunction was rejected on 13.12.1991 on the ground that after survey of land by Patwari, it was found that the land in dispute, was different from that of the sale deed executed, which has caused filing of present civil case for realization of the amount passed as consideration to the defendant. 2. The defendant-respondent in his reply took the plea that he had also pointed out the defect in the title to the purchaser and even after such defect, being divulged, the plaintiff agreed to get the sale deed executed. He therefore, is not liable for payment of consideration. It was also averred that the consideration passed under the sale deed was Rs. 12,000/- and not the amount of Rs. 24,000/- as written in the agreement prior to the execution of the sale deed. The learned trial Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that the necessary parties were not joined as plaintiffs in the case. 3. It is not disputed that the previous suit filed by wife of the plaintiff, her son and daughter were impleaded as a pm1y after death of plaintiff during pendency of the case. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he being Karta of the family is well within his rights to file present suit for realization of consideration amount from the defendant. Although no such averment has been made in the plaint, however, the suit cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that other heirs of the plaintiff's wife were not impleaded as plaintiffs. The suit can be brought by any of the heir of the deceased who has right to realise the amount from the defendant. 4. Although no such averment has been made in the plaint, however, the suit cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that other heirs of the plaintiff's wife were not impleaded as plaintiffs. The suit can be brought by any of the heir of the deceased who has right to realise the amount from the defendant. 4. In so far as the question of limitation is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Article 24 of the Limitation Act will apply. Article 24 applies for refund of money payable with interest and limitation starts when the interest becomes due. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case for money paid upon existing consideration which afterwards fails and the limitation starts according to Article 47 of the Limitation Act from the date of failure. Now what is to be considered in the present case is, what is starting point of limitation regarding failure of consideration. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the limitation shall start from the date when the plaintiff's wife was dispossessed, from the disputed property. Reliance is placed on a decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Gullu Tikam v. Damodar Das reported in AIR 1972 P&H 23 , in that case the suit was for refund of part consideration on the ground that defendant has title only to half portion of the land. However, in the present case, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the fact of disputing title of defendant, was ultimately depending upon the disputed land being measured by the Patwari and therefore, when the Court found that the plaintiff's wife had no title by virtue of the sale deed as the disputed portion was not found on the place where it was described in the sale deed. I am of the opinion that when the Court finds that there may be dispute, regarding starting point of limitation under Article 47 of the Limitation Act, ultimate failure of plaintiff in getting the property under sale deed, should be considered the starting point of limitation for realization of amount of consideration. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 30.12.1991, passed in Civil Suit No. 117/89, creates a limitation in favour of plaintiff. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 30.12.1991, passed in Civil Suit No. 117/89, creates a limitation in favour of plaintiff. The learned trial Court has therefore, erred in holding that 30.12.1991, was not the starting point in this case. 7. Since so far as the amount of consideration is concerned, although in the agreement Rs. 24,000/- was settled as the amount of consideration, however, subsequently, when the sale deed was executed, the amount of consideration as shown to have been received is only Rs. 12,000/-. In the circumstances, the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to amount of Rs. 24,000/- as mentioned in the agreement as the agreement is deemed to have been emerged is subsequent execution of sale deed. The plaintiff-appellant is therefore, entitled only to Rs. 12,000/- with interest at the rate of 1% per month from the date of execution of sale deed till realization of said amount. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and decree is set-aside and the suit is decreed as follows: "The plaintiff-appellant is entitled to Rs. 12,000/- with interest from the date of execution of sale deed dated 7.7.1989, till the date of realization of amount. In facts and circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal."